Saturday, April 23, 2011

Yesterday, I posted a Question on Facebook in the form of the following assertion:

America would benefit from being broken up into several autonomous countries whose political philosophies better match those of its citizens.

-- and invited everyone on my friends list to weigh in. In all, the question received 47 votes: 15 "Yes" and 32 "No". Several people also responded with comments and I've printed them all below (without attribution).

***

I started thinking about this question many years ago, when my father-in-law brought the idea up in conversation. It's possible that he was referring to an idea proposed by Joel Garreau in his book, "Nine Nations of North America" (1981, Houghton Mifflin, Boston). You can find out more about the book here: http://bit.ly/gsKMCS

I was moved to ask the question yesterday after reading something a few days ago in the book "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander, et. al. (1977, Oxford Univ. Press):

"There are natural limits to the size of groups that can govern themselves in a human way . . . It's not hard to see why the government of a region become less and less manageable with size. In a population of N persons, there are of the order of N-squared person-to-person links needed to keep the channels of communication open. Naturally, when N goes beyond a certain limit, the channels of communication needed for democracy and justice and information are simply too clogged, and too complex, and bureaucracy overwhelms human processes . . . We believe the limits are reached when the population of a region reaches some 2 to 10 million."

(Pattern 1 - "Independent Regions")

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting that we scrap the United States in order to resolve the current cultural and class "wars" that have us all so uneasy. There have been divisions before, some far worse than today's, and we've managed to get past them and emerge as a whole nation. The factor that makes it more difficult to support a unified nation is this: 311,219,292. This is was the U.S. Census Bureau's estimate of the total population just a few seconds ago. If you go there now (http://1.usa.gov/dVc4Ez) it'll be higher still.

When we began as a nation the population was a bit more than 100th of today's (3,929,214 in 1790) and we had a land area of around 360,000 square miles (vs. the current 3.79million square miles). Not only do we have 100-fold more people, each with their own concerns, challenges, virtues and vices, but we now have regions with wildly different geography, population density, natural resources, economic bases, etc. Originally, these differences were addressed by a strong reliance on the Constitution's protection of states rights but, as time went on, more and more functions were ceded to the federal government. As you can well imagine, developing a unified vision for the fate of this vast land and its people is well nigh impossible. I suspect we'll continue to try, perhaps even for a long time, but I do think that eventually, it will become too unweildy for the whole of this nation to sail under one flag.

***

Your comments:

Yes

Absolutely! The US is too big to be a functioning democracy. I've advocated this breakup a la Soviet style for years! Let's do it!

Yes

That is what some of the prophecies have pointed too after a major earth change.

No

Well, this is basically a question of decentralization of governance. (Assuming that everyone who lives in each country agrees with each other.) If we have the big honkin' government we have now, obviously there is going to be differences of opinion, which leads to compromise. Which isn't necessarily such a bad thing. If we split everything off, then each country will move in its own direction more quickly, but there are a few problems with this.

First, there is overhead with regards to any enterprise, and when you have several smaller entities all operating parallel to each other, there is unnecessary waste, such as running their own governments, funding the military, maintaining an economy, etc. One country does it more efficiently.

The second problem is that we're talking about the welfare of the people, and obviously there are some diametrically opposed viewpoints floating around. If we had separate countries all sitting here next to each other, there would be conflict. Much of it would be economic, but even some armed, especially when you consider that there are only so many natural resources to go around, and they're going to become more scarce as the climate changes and our population continues to expand like a day-time TV viewer subsisting on peanut butter cups and peeps.

The real question is "if we were allowed to actualize on our ideals, would we be able to breathe life back into the spirit of the country, and become great again?" Some places would flourish - there are bound to just be better perspectives than others, but would the whole of the people considered benefit? I don't think so. My thoughts behind this stem from the thought that people are people no matter what the thought experiment. We're bound to foul up any system given enough time, and that just leaves us with many countries having a problem with zeitgeist instead of one. At least with things as they are, the few can still benefit the many.

No

I think we should stay we are, throw all the rascals out, start over and grow up!!!

No

I don't see it that way. Why turn diversity into division? E Pluribus Unum. That's one of the great strengths of this country. We are always going to have differences, sometimes acrimoniously so, but out of those growing pains we will continue to evolve and develop. You take away diversity, you take away the stimulus to do so. Does anybody want instead a bunch of boring monolithic countries, each marching in its own lockstep? Plus, let's be real, how long would they stay that way anyway? Diversity is increasingly becoming one of the most valued attributes of the evolving human condition. We are stronger growing together, and diverse.

No

Can you imagine the immigration mess? Once it settled down, there would then be chaos as each State tried to set up a government. Oh boy.

No

I think Mr. Lincoln and U S Grant already settled that question.

No

I agree with ____'s comment about the Articles and the CSA, but would add:

The EU, which is about halfway between our articles of confederation and our Constitution, is already showing major stresses;

If Lincoln had simply allowed the South to secede, it would have permitted the South's political philosophy of slavery - which better matched its citizens - to continue, possibly to this very day;

Arguments that take place in the Congress among holders of different philosophies would likely turn into actual shooting wars among the autonomous countries - and note that the greatest US loss of life in any war was the war between the USA and the CSA.

No

I'm voting no, not because I don't believe that the population isn't divided in opinion, but because we settled that shit in 1865! The knuckle draggers in every state are just going to have to come to the 21st century with the rest of us, and if we make education and tolerance our national policy, they will eventually. Right now we are watching the death thrashes of conservative throwback politics, the new demographic is on the rise.

No

Yeah the Tenn,. senate just approved a bill that would make it illegal to mention the existence of gay people to any student. Sorry i don't believ people have a right to be This ignorant.

No

I think it's the thinking that we can all be separated, is the basic problem in America. We are all of one fabric. What hurts one person, hurts us all. The idea of adding just another boundary, isolates us even further. Do you think it could ever be acceptable for one person to have healthcare, while another goes without? Country barriers don't shield the shame of such a condition, only make it more difficult to solve. A child could see it, we are all connected. This issue is how to teach the adults to reclaim the wisdom they were born with.

No

Seems like the country tried that twice ... The Articles of Confederation - 1783-1787 and the Confederate States of America - 1861 to 1865. But maybe I'm being simplistic.

No

This is a very interesting question, but I come down on No along with ___.

Part of America's strength lies in our diversity. We are living out some giant experiment, in which the most rebellious, change-seeking people in the entire world have gathered here to quarrel amongst ourselves until we reach some sort of consensus on how to govern our country. The pendulum of political opinion swings between liberal and conservative, never pausing for long. Right now we have reached a place I find extremely uncomfortable, but change is the byword and this won't be permanent.

____ just walked by and in his opinion, that there is a larger division between urban and rural dwellers in the same state than there is between the different states. That's certainly an important factor also. Rural areas are always more conservative than urban melting pots of diversity.

Texas has been talking for years about succeeding. I wish them well, but think they are nuts. In some ways, the union would be better off without them: through (misguided and short sighted) legislation, they have ruined their own state for anyone but mega-wealthy people. If they leave the union, they would be hoist with their own petard soon enough.....Gail Collins in the NYT has been writing about how terrible the social indicators are in Texas for months, as a warning: Texas has actually implemented many of the legislative approaches recommended by the TeaBaggers, and the results are sad, shameful and discouraging to anyone with a net worth under 6 figures, and to anyone who cares what happens in the future.

No

Many of the people I hold most dear in life live in Indiana. I would never wish this upon them. And besides, this issue was already visited back in 1861-1865.

No

No way. You miniaturize the political structure and you give already too powerful multinationals an even smaller bill to buy off politicians. See old style representatives and the reforms that happened surrounding them as an example of exactly this...

Maybe

I am undecided. There is a part of me that is in love with the idea we can all work together no matter our differences, towards a common goal of the greater good for everyone. But the realist in says that just is not possible with the way the world is moving.